6 ms·

At this point, I think all of the big tech companies have had some accusations of them acting unethically, but usually, the accusations are around them acting a

At this point, I think all of the big tech companies have had some accusations of them acting unethically, but usually, the accusations are around them acting anticompetitively or issues around privacy. Meta (and social media more broadly) are the only case where we have (in my opinion) substantiated allegations of a company being aware of a large, negative impact on society (mental wellness, of teens no less), and still prioritizing growth and profit. The mix is usually: grow at all costs mindset, being "data-driven", optimizing for engagement/addiction, and monetizing via ads. The center of gravity of this has all been Meta (and social media), but that thinking has permeated lots of other tech as well.

stanleykm 11mo ago
We have evidence for this in other companies too. Oil & Gas and Tobacco companies are top of mind.
- rocqua 11mo ago
  It's a well worn playbook by now. But Meta seems to be the only one where we now have proof of internal research being scuttled for showing the inconvenient truth.
  - hopelite 11mo ago
    The tobacco industry also did that, but in many ways it also seems different, because where tobacco was something that has existed for millennia and was a scourge introduced to the world by the tribes of the “new world”; Facebook was a primary player in creating the whole social media space, something that effectively did not exist in the predatory and malignant manner that it was used for to create a digital panopticon, or more accurately and way worse, where your participation is required for a certain kind of success. Social media is abusive and utterly psychotic and narcissistic, because that is the type of people who created it using basic psychological abuse and submission tactics. Banks, casinos, games, hollywood/TV, news/politics, social media, contemporary academia and religion, etc.; they all function on being endorphin dealers/dispensers.
  - zelphirkalt 11mo ago
    True, but there haven't even been publicly known internal research attempts at for example YouTube/Google about the content they are pushing and probably more importantly the ads they keep pushing into people's faces. I bet FB/Meta are kicking themselves now, for even running such internal research in the first place. My point is, that all of these big tech giants will find, that they are a harmful cancer to society, at least in parts. Which is probably why they don't even "research" it. This way they can continue to act oblivious to this fact.
    - somenameforme 11mo ago
      > I bet FB/Meta are kicking themselves now, for even running such internal research in the first place. 100%. This is what people miss in this thread when they're talking about seeing to punish companies who knowingly harm society. All that is going to do is discourage companies from ever seeking to evaluate the effects that they're having.
      - hrimfaxi 11mo ago
        Won't the absence of punishing companies that knowingly harm society in a way encourage more of the same conduct? What's your suggestion?
      - hananova 11mo ago
        Then internal evaluation must be made mandatory. This is something that can be regulated, there just isn't the will for it.
  - zug_zug 11mo ago
    Chemical companies also are on this list (PFAs). https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/05/425451/makers-pfas-forever-chemicals-covered-dangers https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/05/425451/makers-pfas-forever...
- salawat 11mo ago
  Petrochemical, Dow & Industrial Big Chem, Pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, finance companies, Monsanto, mining companies. I mean, let's be real. That's really isn't a big company that achieves scale that doesn't have skeletons in the closet. Period.
- laweijfmvo 11mo ago
  Don’t forget the All-Fats-Are-Bad sugar scam.
jordanb 11mo ago
It's on the same scale of chemical companies covering up cancerous forever chemicals.
- lazide 11mo ago
  Cigarette companies hiding known addictive effects?
  - rkomorn 11mo ago
    And more recently, pretending vapes are a solution to cigarettes.
    - mschuster91 11mo ago
      PG/VG base is exactly the same stuff that has been used in foggers/hazers for decades. If there were negative health effects associated with the stuff, we'd have spotted it long ago. As for nicotine, well, it's the same stuff as in cigarettes, we know about its effects again thanks to decades of research. The only thing left is questionable flavoring agents and dodgy shops with THC oil vapes (although that kind of contamination is now known and it's been ages since I last heard anything). At large, vapes are better than cigarettes.
      - stackskipton 11mo ago
        >PG/VG base is exactly the same stuff that has been used in foggers/hazers for decades. If there were negative health effects associated with the stuff, we'd have spotted it long ago. How many people are directly exposed to it daily? Technicians and performers are probably it. Everyone else is very rare so it's possibly any side effects took a while for medical community to pick up on until everyone started vaping. >At large, vapes are better than cigarettes. Better yes, they are harm reduction over cigarettes. However, it's not "good" and should be as regulated as cigarettes are.
        lazide 11mo ago
chroma205 11mo ago
> Meta are the only case where we have substantiated allegations of a company being aware of a large, negative impact on society Robinhood has entered the chat Why would one specific industry be better? The toxic people will migrate to that industry and profit at the expense of society. It’s market efficiency at work.
- Ozzie_osman 11mo ago
  I do think an industry is often shaped by the early leaders or group of people around them. Those people shape the dominant company in that space, and then go off to spread that culture in other companies that they start or join. And, competitors are often looking to the dominant company and trying to emulate that company.
  - chroma205 11mo ago
    > I do think an industry is often shaped by the early leaders or group of people around them Yes, but did any industry live long enough to not become the villain? Early OpenAI set the tone of safe, open-source AI. The next few competitors also followed OpenAI’s lead. And yet, here we are.
    - justinclift 11mo ago
      > Early OpenAI set the tone of safe, open-source AI. Um, wat?
      - chroma205 11mo ago
        > Um, wat? https://github.com/openai https://github.com/openai
        justinclift 11mo ago
        "Safe"?
    - 11mo ago
somenameforme 11mo ago
What do you think the social effects of large scale advertising are? The whole point is to create false demand essentially driving discontent. I've no idea if Google et al have ever done a formal internal study on the consequences, but it's not hard to predict what the result would be. The internet can provide an immense amount of good for society, but if we net it on overall impact, I suspect that the internet has overall had a severely negative impact on society. And this effect is being magnified by companies who certainly know that what they're doing is socially detrimental, but they're making tons of money doing it.
- shkkmo 11mo ago
  The positive benefits in education, science research and logistics are hard to understate. Mass advertising existed before the internet. Can you be more explicit about which downsides you thibk the additional mass advertising on the internet caused that can come anywhere close to the immeasurable benefits provided by the internet?
  - somenameforme 11mo ago
    I'm somewhat unsurprised that my off the cuff hypothesis has been tested, and is indeed likely accurate. [1] Advertising literally makes people dissatisfied with their lives. And it's extremely easy to see the causal relationship for why this is. Companies like Google are certainly 100% aware of this. And saying that advertising existed before the internet is somewhat flippant. Obviously it did but the scale has increased so dramatically much that it's reaching the point of absurdity. And a practical point on this topic is that the benefits of the internet are, in practice, fringe, even if freely available to everyone. For instance now there are free classes from most of all top universities online, on just about every topic, that people can enroll and participate in. There are literally 0 barriers to receiving a free premium quality education. Yet the number of people that participate in this is negligible and overwhelmingly composed of people that would have had no less success even prior to the internet. By contrast the negatives are extremely widespread on both an individual and social level. As my post count should demonstrate, I love the internet. And obviously this site is just one small segment of all the things I do on the internet. In fact my current living would be impossible without it. Yet if I had the choice of pushing a button that would send humanity on a trajectory where we sidestep (or move along from) the internet, I wouldn't hesitate in the slightest to push it. [1] - https://hbr.org/2020/01/advertising-makes-us-unhappy https://hbr.org/2020/01/advertising-makes-us-unhappy
sofixa 11mo ago
> Meta (and social media more broadly) are the only case where we have (in my opinion) substantiated allegations of a company being aware of a large, negative impact on society (mental wellness, of teens no less), and still prioritizing growth and profit Them doing nothing about hate speech that fanned the flames for a full blown genocide is pretty terrible too. They knew the risks, were warned, yet still didn't do anything. It would be unfair to say the Rohingya genocide is the fault of Meta, but they definitely contributed way too much.
transportgo 11mo ago
The leaders and one of the announcers of Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines got 30 years to life sentences for their part in the Rwandan genocide.

stanleykm 11mo ago

We have evidence for this in other companies too. Oil & Gas and Tobacco companies are top of mind.

rocqua 11mo ago
It's a well worn playbook by now. But Meta seems to be the only one where we now have proof of internal research being scuttled for showing the inconvenient truth.
- hopelite 11mo ago
  The tobacco industry also did that, but in many ways it also seems different, because where tobacco was something that has existed for millennia and was a scourge introduced to the world by the tribes of the “new world”; Facebook was a primary player in creating the whole social media space, something that effectively did not exist in the predatory and malignant manner that it was used for to create a digital panopticon, or more accurately and way worse, where your participation is required for a certain kind of success. Social media is abusive and utterly psychotic and narcissistic, because that is the type of people who created it using basic psychological abuse and submission tactics. Banks, casinos, games, hollywood/TV, news/politics, social media, contemporary academia and religion, etc.; they all function on being endorphin dealers/dispensers.
- zelphirkalt 11mo ago
  True, but there haven't even been publicly known internal research attempts at for example YouTube/Google about the content they are pushing and probably more importantly the ads they keep pushing into people's faces. I bet FB/Meta are kicking themselves now, for even running such internal research in the first place. My point is, that all of these big tech giants will find, that they are a harmful cancer to society, at least in parts. Which is probably why they don't even "research" it. This way they can continue to act oblivious to this fact.
  - somenameforme 11mo ago
    > I bet FB/Meta are kicking themselves now, for even running such internal research in the first place. 100%. This is what people miss in this thread when they're talking about seeing to punish companies who knowingly harm society. All that is going to do is discourage companies from ever seeking to evaluate the effects that they're having.
    - hrimfaxi 11mo ago
      Won't the absence of punishing companies that knowingly harm society in a way encourage more of the same conduct? What's your suggestion?
    - hananova 11mo ago
      Then internal evaluation must be made mandatory. This is something that can be regulated, there just isn't the will for it.
- zug_zug 11mo ago
  Chemical companies also are on this list (PFAs). https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/05/425451/makers-pfas-forever-chemicals-covered-dangers https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2023/05/425451/makers-pfas-forever...
salawat 11mo ago
Petrochemical, Dow & Industrial Big Chem, Pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, finance companies, Monsanto, mining companies. I mean, let's be real. That's really isn't a big company that achieves scale that doesn't have skeletons in the closet. Period.
laweijfmvo 11mo ago
Don’t forget the All-Fats-Are-Bad sugar scam.

jordanb 11mo ago

It's on the same scale of chemical companies covering up cancerous forever chemicals.

lazide 11mo ago
Cigarette companies hiding known addictive effects?
- rkomorn 11mo ago
  And more recently, pretending vapes are a solution to cigarettes.
  - mschuster91 11mo ago
    PG/VG base is exactly the same stuff that has been used in foggers/hazers for decades. If there were negative health effects associated with the stuff, we'd have spotted it long ago. As for nicotine, well, it's the same stuff as in cigarettes, we know about its effects again thanks to decades of research. The only thing left is questionable flavoring agents and dodgy shops with THC oil vapes (although that kind of contamination is now known and it's been ages since I last heard anything). At large, vapes are better than cigarettes.
    - stackskipton 11mo ago
      >PG/VG base is exactly the same stuff that has been used in foggers/hazers for decades. If there were negative health effects associated with the stuff, we'd have spotted it long ago. How many people are directly exposed to it daily? Technicians and performers are probably it. Everyone else is very rare so it's possibly any side effects took a while for medical community to pick up on until everyone started vaping. >At large, vapes are better than cigarettes. Better yes, they are harm reduction over cigarettes. However, it's not "good" and should be as regulated as cigarettes are.
      - lazide 11mo ago

chroma205 11mo ago

> Meta are the only case where we have substantiated allegations of a company being aware of a large, negative impact on society Robinhood has entered the chat Why would one specific industry be better? The toxic people will migrate to that industry and profit at the expense of society. It’s market efficiency at work.

Ozzie_osman 11mo ago
I do think an industry is often shaped by the early leaders or group of people around them. Those people shape the dominant company in that space, and then go off to spread that culture in other companies that they start or join. And, competitors are often looking to the dominant company and trying to emulate that company.
- chroma205 11mo ago
  > I do think an industry is often shaped by the early leaders or group of people around them Yes, but did any industry live long enough to not become the villain? Early OpenAI set the tone of safe, open-source AI. The next few competitors also followed OpenAI’s lead. And yet, here we are.
  - justinclift 11mo ago
    > Early OpenAI set the tone of safe, open-source AI. Um, wat?
    - chroma205 11mo ago
      > Um, wat? https://github.com/openai https://github.com/openai
      - justinclift 11mo ago
        "Safe"?
  - 11mo ago

somenameforme 11mo ago

What do you think the social effects of large scale advertising are? The whole point is to create false demand essentially driving discontent. I've no idea if Google et al have ever done a formal internal study on the consequences, but it's not hard to predict what the result would be. The internet can provide an immense amount of good for society, but if we net it on overall impact, I suspect that the internet has overall had a severely negative impact on society. And this effect is being magnified by companies who certainly know that what they're doing is socially detrimental, but they're making tons of money doing it.

shkkmo 11mo ago
The positive benefits in education, science research and logistics are hard to understate. Mass advertising existed before the internet. Can you be more explicit about which downsides you thibk the additional mass advertising on the internet caused that can come anywhere close to the immeasurable benefits provided by the internet?
- somenameforme 11mo ago
  I'm somewhat unsurprised that my off the cuff hypothesis has been tested, and is indeed likely accurate. [1] Advertising literally makes people dissatisfied with their lives. And it's extremely easy to see the causal relationship for why this is. Companies like Google are certainly 100% aware of this. And saying that advertising existed before the internet is somewhat flippant. Obviously it did but the scale has increased so dramatically much that it's reaching the point of absurdity. And a practical point on this topic is that the benefits of the internet are, in practice, fringe, even if freely available to everyone. For instance now there are free classes from most of all top universities online, on just about every topic, that people can enroll and participate in. There are literally 0 barriers to receiving a free premium quality education. Yet the number of people that participate in this is negligible and overwhelmingly composed of people that would have had no less success even prior to the internet. By contrast the negatives are extremely widespread on both an individual and social level. As my post count should demonstrate, I love the internet. And obviously this site is just one small segment of all the things I do on the internet. In fact my current living would be impossible without it. Yet if I had the choice of pushing a button that would send humanity on a trajectory where we sidestep (or move along from) the internet, I wouldn't hesitate in the slightest to push it. [1] - https://hbr.org/2020/01/advertising-makes-us-unhappy https://hbr.org/2020/01/advertising-makes-us-unhappy

sofixa 11mo ago

> Meta (and social media more broadly) are the only case where we have (in my opinion) substantiated allegations of a company being aware of a large, negative impact on society (mental wellness, of teens no less), and still prioritizing growth and profit Them doing nothing about hate speech that fanned the flames for a full blown genocide is pretty terrible too. They knew the risks, were warned, yet still didn't do anything. It would be unfair to say the Rohingya genocide is the fault of Meta, but they definitely contributed way too much.

transportgo 11mo ago

The leaders and one of the announcers of Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines got 30 years to life sentences for their part in the Rwandan genocide.